Westminster say I paid by phone for the wrong vehicle. Can I make a case?

[diveboy]

Hi

 

I would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this:

 

I swapped cars with a friend for the morning and parked it on a Westminster Pay be Phone/SMS bay. As the vehicle wasn't registered I phoned their payment service and gave the details to an operator who said he had added the vehicle. He told me that he would put me through to the automated system which would take the payment for said car.

 

I made the payment and thought nothing further about it. When I returned to the vehicle there was a PCN on it.

 

After contacting Westminster they confirmed that payment had been made, and that the borrowed vehicle had been added as I stated. However the payment was made for my own car. After further investigation, they claimed that I selected the automated system for my own car and not the one I had borrowed (or registered that day). I asked them to review my conversation with the operator, but they have not done so as yet.

 

I was wondering if anyone thinks that I have grounds for appeal?

 

A couple of thoughts occur to me:

If I can show that their system was at fault (very hard to prove)), or that the operator gave me the wrong advice (that I was making a payment for the borrowed car) then I would have a strong case for the PCN to be cancelled.

 

Assuming that I did press the wrong button in the automated system, is there a reasonable case to make that:

- I both registered the vehicle and made a payment

- Given it was my clear intent (as shown by the conversation with the operator) to make a payment for that vehicle and money was taken by Westminster, there is nothing in the regulations to say that the PCN should stand

 

Any help would be appreciated!

 

thanks

[2ltr16valve]

WCC have a policy of cancelling the first ticket... or at least used to.

 

I would personally take it all the way to patas mate, If you have had tickets previously wcc will just reject any appeal without any consideration.

[diveboy]

Thanks for the advice. I have had previous WCC tickets (and had them cancelled). I am prepared to take it to PATAS as I don't see what grounds they have under the regulations (my intention was clearly to pay for the vehicle concerned).

[green_and_mean]

I am prepared to take it to PATAS as I don't see what grounds they have under the regulations (my intention was clearly to pay for the vehicle concerned).

 

The grounds are you didn't pay for the car that was parked in theory you could have parked the car you had paid for and the borrowed one. You should go to the PATAS website and look through the Westminster caes in the statutary register you may find one that is like yours that gives you grounds to appeal.

 

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/StatReg/StatRegAdvanced.aspx

[diveboy]

That is what WCC will probably argue. However, I made a payment in the way that I was led to believe was correct for the vehicle concerned. Is there not a case to say that it was the fault of WCC's system that I was led to pay for the wrong vehicle?

 

BTW I didn't need to pay for my own car, as I have a permit for that Zone!

[green_and_mean]

That is what WCC will probably argue. However, I made a payment in the way that I was led to believe was correct for the vehicle concerned. Is there not a case to say that it was the fault of WCC's system that I was led to pay for the wrong vehicle?

 

BTW I didn't need to pay for my own car, as I have a permit for that Zone!

 

It depends on the adjudicator but they have agreed with WCC in the past...

 

Case Reference:2110458508

Appellant:Mr Geoffrey Howard Gaffney

Authority:Westminster

VRM:HT53TMZ

PCN:WM68792337

Contravention Date:29 Jun 2011

Contravention Time:17:54

Contravention Location:Henrietta Street

Penalty Amount:£80.00

Contravention:Parked without payment of the parking charge

Decision Date:22 Sep 2011

Adjudicator:Edward Houghton

Appeal Decision:Refused

Direction:None

Reasons:The Appellant intended to pay to park one vehicle but the system recorded payment for another . I see no reason to doubt the Council's detailed evidence as to how the system worked and what took place on this particular occasion. If a motorist makes a telephone call from a location where there is so much noise that he cannot properly hear what is being said the fault does not lie with the telephone system. As the Appellant did not make payment for the vehicle that was parked it was in contravention and it cannot be said the PCN was issued other than lawfully

[diveboy]

Thanks. Hmm. Doesn't look too optimistic. I think that it will really depend on my conversation with the operator.

[2ltr16valve]

Part of your argument would be that "as you had a valid permit for the vehicle the system has processed payment for, it is clear to anyone that you would not have been making payment for this vehicle on this occasion - but for the newly added vehicle, that does not have a valid permit".

 

I would be asking also, why the system processed a payment for that specific zone when in fact the vehicle has a permit to park there already.... who would pay twice !!

[green_and_mean]

Part of your argument would be that "as you had a valid permit for the vehicle the system has processed payment for, it is clear to anyone that you would not have been making payment for this vehicle on this occasion - but for the newly added vehicle, that does not have a valid permit".

 

I would be asking also, why the system processed a payment for that specific zone when in fact the vehicle has a permit to park there already.... who would pay twice !!

 

Because the system operates across the whole of Westminster not just in the zone he parked and also if he lost or mislaid his permit he would not be able to park, that is on top of all the other issues such as updating the data base of permits and data protection issues.

[diveboy]

I don't know if I much of an argument regarding the permit for my car, however, I think there is a case to be made that I was advised by the operator that I was about to make a payment for the vehicle I had just registered. Westminster claim their system gave me a confirmation of the VRN, but I am not aware of such a confirmation.

[2ltr16valve]

I don't know if I much of an argument regarding the permit for my car, however, I think there is a case to be made that I was advised by the operator that I was about to make a payment for the vehicle I had just registered. Westminster claim their system gave me a confirmation of the VRN, but I am not aware of such a confirmation.

 

I think you will find that WCC will say either (1) the phone call was not recored. or, (2) they can not locate the recording..... so unless you have proof of what was said by way of your own recording then thats going to be a big problem.

 

Was the place you got the ticket even valid, as in were all signs correct ? road marking correct ? etc

[diveboy]

I agree, the permit issue is a red-herring - as you say, I am registered to park so that I can stop in other areas of the borough. I think the argument will be down to what their operator told me and how I was then processed through the automated system. Unlike the case listed previously, I could clearly hear the message, and had it given the VRN of my own car (not the borrowed one), I wouldn't have accepted it!

[diveboy]

I was told by one of their staff that the calls were recorded, I asked them in my email response to review said recording and they confirmed by letter that they were checking this information. I don't think it would look very good at PATAS if they then said they didn't have that information!

[diveboy]

... the bay is right outside my flat, so I'll go and have a look shortly. I'm pretty certain the markings are correct (sadly).